tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post111251782991387048..comments2020-06-05T16:01:20.959-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Invincible IdeasRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1117082990483289112005-05-26T00:49:00.000-04:002005-05-26T00:49:00.000-04:00Very intriguing argument, Richard. Though I reject...Very intriguing argument, Richard. Though I reject it:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://illusivemind.blogspot.com/2005/05/invincible-ideas.html" REL="nofollow">Invincible Ideas?</A>Legacy Userhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11626961547977969781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1112584412888457082005-04-03T23:13:00.000-04:002005-04-03T23:13:00.000-04:00That was Putnam's argument towards Rorty as well. ...That was Putnam's argument towards Rorty as well. Rorty in his writings presupposes that he is right in at least someway, which ends up refuting Rorty's position. I don't recall Rorty's response. But what is weird to me is that I've read Rorty saying several times that he holds basically the same perspective that Putnam does. But there appear to be fairly significant differences between them.<BR/><BR/>Personally I think Rorty just enjoys playing the skeptic.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01422358152156893481noreply@blogger.com